The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1887-11-03
ADIEU, ANARCHISTS!
The Writ of Error Denied by
the Supreme Court.
THE BOMB-THROWERS MUST GO
Next Friday Week the Condemned
seven viii Suffer the Penalty
of their Crime.
THE BOMB-THROWERS MUST GO
The Anarchists Must Swing.

no AeO -
WAsHINe1oN, November 1.-The Chief
Justice, after making the customary
formal announcement of the case, said;
when, as in this case, application is
made to US on the suggestion Of one OF
our number to whom a similar applica-
tion,h been previously addressed, for
the allowance of a writ of error to the
highest court of the State under sectlon
700, Revised Statutes, it is our duty to
ascertain, not onl whether any cues
tion renewable here was made and
| decided in the proper court below, but
whether it is of character to justify us
in bringing the judgment here for
re = examination. In our opinion,
the writ ought not to be allowed by
the court, If it appears from
the face of the record that the decision
of the Federal question, which is COM
planned of, was so plainly right as not to
REQUIRE argument, and especially If 1t Is
in accordance With our own we'll con-
sidered judgment in similar cases. That
| Is. in effect, what was done in TWitchell
VS.. Commonwealth, Z Wall, 323, when
the writ was refused because the ques-
tons presented by the record were mo
longer subjects of discussion, although
if they had been, in the opinion OF the
Court, "open," 1t would have been
allowed. When under section of our
rule 6 motion to affirm is united with
motion to dismiss for want
of jurisdiction, the practice has
reen to grant the motion to
affirm, when the question on which
our jurisdiction depends, was so mani
Ioa;lal fnhf fhof rhof
ought not to be held for further argu-
ment. Adopting a similar rule upon
motions in open court for allowance of
the writ, is apparent, for certainly we
would not be justified as Court in
sending out writ TO bring up for re-
view Judgment of the highest court of
State when it is apparent on the face
of the record that it would be our duty
to grant the motion to affirm as soon as
it was made in the proper form. In the
present case we have had the
benefit of argument in support
of the application, and while
counsel have not deemed it their
duty to go fully into the merits of the
questions involved, they have shown US
distinctly what the decisions were of
which they complain, and how the
questions arose. In this way we are
able to determine, as court in session.
whether the errors alleged are such as
to justify US in bringing the case here
for review. We proceed, then, to con-
slider what the questions are, and which,
if it exists at all, our jurisdiction de-
ponds. The particular provisions of
the Constitution of the United States
on which counsel rely, are four I'd ln!arti-
cles 4, 6, and IA of the amendments.
k,f Grof orfioloc nj tho fnf1
teenth amendment were not intended
to limit the powers of State govern
ment in respect to their own citizens,
but to operate on the national govern
ment alone was DE- cided more than half
! q century ago, and that decision has
been steadily adhered to since. It was
commended, however, in the argument
that Though originally the first ten
amendments were adopted IS q llmita-
ton on the Federal power, yet IN so far
as they secure and recognize funda-
mental rights, the common law rights of
man, they make them privileges and
immunities of man as citizen
of the United States and cannot now
be abridged by a State under the
fourteenth amendment. In other
words, while the ten amendments as
limitations on power only apply to the
| Federal government and not to States,
yet, in so far as they declare or recog-
nize the rights of persons, these rights
are theirs as citizens of the United
| States and the fourteenth amendment
as to sucn rights, limits the State power
as the ten amendments had limited
the Federal power. 1t is also con-
tended that the provision of the four
| tenth amendment which declares that
| Lfofa ohof 6oTNriun nf
life, liberty or property without due
process of law" i'm plies that
every person charged with crime
in State shall be entitled TO trial by an
impartial jury, and shall not be COM
PEELED to testify against himself. The
objections are, in brief: First, that the
statute of the State as construed by the
court, deprived the petitioners of a trial
by an impartial jury, and second. that
Spies was compelled to give evidence
against himself. Before considering
whether the Constitution OF the United
| States has the effect which is claimed it
is proper to inquire whether the Federal
questions relied on, in fact arise on the
face of this record. One statute to
which objection is made was approved
March Il. 1874, and has been in force
since July I'd OF that year. The COM
! plant Is that the trial court, aching IN
der this statute. and in accordance with
its requirements compelled the petit
TONERS against their will to submit TO
trial by jury that was not impartial,
ana thus deprived them cf one of the
fundamental rights which they had as
citizens Of the United States under the
nauonal Constitution, and if the
sentence Of the court is carried into
execution they will be deprived of their
lives without due process, of law"
In.HoptsvS. Utah, 120 U. S 1884, was
decided by this Court that when chal-
lenge by defendant in a criminal &C
ton to juror for bias, actual or i'm
piled, is disalloWed and the juror is
thereupon peremptorily challenged by
the defendant, and excused, and an i'm
partial and competent juror is obtained
in his place, no injury is done the de-
PENDANT if, until the jury is completed,
he has other peremptory challenges,
which he can use, and so in Hayes VS.,
Missouri, 120 U. s. II, it was
said: The right to challenge is
a right to reject, not to select
a juror. IF from those who remain an